Harry v NGN 2

[mainecooncatonahottinroof]

I don't think we're done talking - and I never start threads!

As you were!

Exactly! Just saying "monarchy is outdated, time to replace it" shows no understanding of the British constitution.

https://www.republic.org.uk/abolish_the_monarchy

According to Republic:

"Abolishing the monarchy isn't that complicated. It'll take some work, of course, but it's a well-worn path and the destination is worth the effort of getting there.

Parliament can abolish the monarchy overnight, if it wishes to. Of course that's not going to happen, for all sorts of reasons. But there is no constitutional barrier to abolishing the monarchy.

In 2021 Barbados made the switch from monarchy to republic. While we have the added detail of scrapping the whole institution, rather than just separating from it, the process here in the UK wouldn't be much different. An Act of parliament would transfer Crown assets to the nation or parliament, the Crown would be abolished along with the position of monarch and other royal and aristocratic titles, and a new office of president would be established.

This would all be done after a referendum in which the people voted to ditch the monarchy. Once parliament passes the Act voters would return to the polls to choose a new head of state. The election would be followed shortly after by an inauguration ceremony and it's at that moment that the changes all come into force. The new, elected, head of state is sworn in, the old one - the monarch - leaves office and retires.

A similar process would take place for the introduction of an elected upper house. Elections are held and the day after results are announced all current Lords would lose their seats, replaced by elected representatives.

Becoming a republic is relatively simple for Britain, because the main building blocks are already in place. We simply take parliament and head of state and make both fully democratic. We would still have a prime minister at the head of government, we would still have the House of Commons and a second chamber, with elected representatives replacing the lords. We would still have a largely ceremonial head of state, but they would have certain limited powers that allow them to guard our constitution and enforce the rules of government.

Some people suggest that every law has to be unpicked, each one having references to the Crown or monarch removed and edited. That's not how this kind of change works. Since 1989 countless countries across Europe and elsewhere have made much bigger transitions from authoritarian regimes to democracies. They didn't rewrite or scrap every law that existed before they freed themselves from oppression.
Czechia, has managed this kind of transition twice, once when ditching communist rule as part of Czechoslovakia, and then when it separated from Slovakia just a couple of years later.
Barbados gives a neat example of how it works. In the legislation that introduced the republic, they said "any reference to the Queen ... shall be read and construed as if it were a reference to the State," and "any reference to Crown lands shall be read and construed as a reference to State lands," and so on. A single paragraph overwrites all references to Crown or monarch.
Where existing laws contradict a new constitution, the new constitution automatically overrides the law.

Britain is perfectly capable of drafting and agreeing a new constitution and changing to a republic."

This would all be done after a referendum in which the people voted to ditch the monarchy. Once parliament passes the Act voters would return to the polls to choose a new head of state. The election would be followed shortly after by an inauguration ceremony and it's at that moment that the changes all come into force. The new, elected, head of state is sworn in, the old one - the monarch - leaves office and retires.

Is this referendum going to include the 14 Commonwealth realms as well?

I think this really should be a new thread. It's way off the original thread topic.

Ok, how is the new HoS elected? Who can stand? Is anyone (e.g. anyone convicted of certain crimes) barred from standing? Does it go to whoever gets most votes in a single vote, or are there various rounds with candidates being eliminated along the way?

What powers does the HoS have? Can they refuse the new version of Royal Assent if they disagree with a law passed by the Houses of Parliament? Can they support one particular political party over others?

I don't claim to be an expert but I think it would be fair if each have their own referendum? That's probably coming anyway for most of them in the not too distant future?

Exactly - it’s not an impossible task but it would be the work of years to make all the decisions to replace the monarch’s role in all the different parts of UK life.

The good news is you only need to do it once and then it’s done.

But there’s so much more work needed before you get to the actual handover bit that it’s daunting for even the most republican leaning government to focus on it.

And if the U.K. voted to abolish it and say Canada wanted to retain it, then what happens?

"Abolishing the monarchy isn't that complicated."

Anyone else getting "oven ready Brexit deal" flashbacks?

Indeed!

It will be Brexit on steroids😂
We won't just be sowing division in our own country (again), we will be sowing it in 14 other countries!
Banging idea.

I think probably best to get back on topic(ish).

Becoming a republic is relatively simple for Britain, because the main building blocks are already in place.

And yet, no, because the institution of the Crown is fundamentally embedded in all the organs of the state and numerous concepts and principles in our legal system. It was a massive, massive job for example to go through every Act of Parliament and amended them to remove and replace references to the EU an EU law. You’d have to do the same for every reference to the Crown - but first you’d need to decide what you were replacing them with. Thta alone will cost millions and millions.

Then there’s the practical changes. How do you run your honours system? What do you call it? How do you rebadge everything that has Royal or Crown in their name of title? Who pays for all of them to rebrand, communicate the changes, obtain new trademarks and trading styles etc? How do you sort out what compensation teh existing family are due for their historic assets? (Every county that has deposed their monarchs in the last century has had to sort this out).

Not to mention all the points people have already made.”Relatively simple” is just a ludicrous claim by Republic.

Well I don’t think it’s necessarily complicated but it would be laborious. And there would have to be debate and some voting either by all of the government or a special offshoot bipartisan committee on thousands of individual decisions.

From the serious elements of constitutional law and the powers of a non royal head of state to how should the second chamber work - you can’t really have the upper house stuffed with Barons and Lords and hereditary peers anymore.

Then there’s the ceremonial changes - opening of parliament to replacing national recognition awards to members of the public - end of Knights and Dames I presume?

And then unpicking all the other institutions which will have to decide who will be at their head - military and church, and changes to language in the law - no more KC/QCs - to decisions on what designs to replace all the money with.

It’s years of work and money and the benefits of the change aren’t overwhelmingly clear in any argument I’ve seen so far.

The referendum and the campaigns on each side have to be well organised and well thought out of course.

The question of retaining a monarchy is extremely important but hardly of the same gravity as Brexit? Maybe historically but not economically?

Whichever the outcome, the result isn't likely to have a huge impact on the individual income of citizens, or their rights to free speech, it shouldn't affect democracy, rather the reverse I would have thought, and it won't isolate us legislatively or economically from our nearest neighbours and allies as Brexit has done?

If you want to discuss the new republic - happy to resurrect my old thread on it

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/the_royal_family/4787223-what-do-you-want-as-head-of-state-for-the-uk?page=9&reply=136324393

I think economically it is less significant than Brexit.

Culturally it would be huge. And the devil.is in the details. The smaller the points of difference the more animosity! Which is why civil wars are so destructive, and why sectarianism is so bitter.

For me there would need to be significant benefits to make it worthwhile, and I don't think getting rid of the monarchy would, in itself, make the UK a more equal society (which would be a significant benefit). I can't see a clear relationship between republicanism=equality and monarchy=inequality.

The most unequal countries in the world are republics, some.of the most equal and democratic are monarchies.

I think this is different Serenster to be fair because Brexit required not only a review of procedure but also the substance of EU laws. Replacing the King is just a question'of procedure. From the moment you create the Republic everything new is done differently, but one measure would confirm the validity of all existing laws.

I would happily abolish the Honours System and replace it with a non-politicised merit based award.

Everything that has crown or royal in it can be be gradually changed as the need rises. All of the smaller obstacles are only complicated if there isn't a will to make it happen.

Anyway, the focus of any move to a republic should surely be the reform of parliament, particularly the upper chamber?

I would happily abolish the Honours System and replace it with a non-politicised merit based award.

Funnily enough the did that in New Zealand and it was wildly unpopular! They are back to Knights and Dames now.

All good points. We would all have to work hard to replace the monarchy with something much better.

I would argue that this is not about revolution but a gradual evolution towards a more reformed, effective, fairer state. And I think removing the anachronisms of monarchy make that change easier to achieve.

Above all, I think having an elected head of state is about strengthening our democracy which is a very important principle.

Sorry Iced Purple, but I meant to write ‘I don’t condemn William for settling.’ I left out a word, a a glaringly important one and therefore the meaning of the sentence was changed. I don’t condemn either of Diana’s sons.

Sorry also to be 3 days in correcting my mistake. I’ve just seen it.

Having read backwards through most of the thread from last post to your response to me, I can see no one is convincing any one of seeing any of this differently.

Are they? I didn’t realise.

Australia still sticks by its decision.

Australia had a referendum on becoming a republic in 1999. Voters were unsure what system would replace the monarchy so the majority voted No. Typically referenda are very hard to pass in Australia. No politician has touched the subject seriously since. Monarchy is seen as a bit of a ridiculous anomaly, particularly by younger generations, but there are other much more pressing issues.

Thank you. Yes it was me. I read an article somewhere years ago that talked about this. Unfortunately I can't find it now and don't have hours to search for it!

I think everyone would agree we need to work towards a 'better' system.

The difficulty is everyone will have a different definition of 'better', and that will rapidly become bitter and divisive (as with Brexit).

An elected HoS doesn't necessarily 'strengthen democracy'. Does Trump strengthen democracy? Or Putin?

That was a real shock defeat.

It was expected that the overwhelming majority would be for becoming a republic, with precise arrangements tbc. There was - at the time - no chatter about the terms in the referendum nor detail of future arrangements. It was simply meant to set the settled aim, and begin the work towards new arrangements.

Other countries have voted ‘yes’ to becoming republics in similar votes (without detail of how, and with post-referendum decisions taking months (years?) before ready for actual transition. So that’s not necessarily a key factor.

It’s a silent majority speaking through the ballot box. Every single opinion poll put support for the monarchy in Australia as really low (under 30%, so as low as 20%) and there was a lot of coverage of supporters saying they were saddened, but ready to accept change - major softening up? But even with all that, it was not borne out in the actual poll

Britains ’lowest ever’ support for the monarchy is over 65%

I don’t see a referendum coming here in the next century or two.

Especially as it’s a type of government in use in about 1/3 of countries, including some of the most egalitarian on the planet. Nothing ‘outdated’ about it at all, despite republicans seeking to make it appear so